Multiple health care organizations have identified handoffs as a source of clinical errors; however, few studies have linked handoff interventions to improved patient outcomes. This systematic review of English-language research articles, published January 2008 to May 2015 and focusing on shift-to-shift handoff interventions and patient outcomes, yielded 10 774 unique articles. Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria, measuring each of the following: patient falls (n = 7), reportable events (n = 6), length of stay (n = 4), mortality (n = 4), code calls (n = 4), medication errors (n = 4), medical errors (n = 3), procedural complications (n = 2), pressure ulcers (n = 2), weekend discharges (n = 2), and nosocomial infections (n = 2). One study each also measured time to first intervention, restraint use, overnight transfusions, and out-of-hours deteriorations. Studies that reported funding had higher quality scores. It is difficult to identify trends in the handoff research because of simultaneous implementation of multiple interventions and heterogeneity of the interventions, outcomes measured, and settings. The authors call for increased handoff research funding, especially for studies that include patient outcome measures.
GandhiTKKachaliaAThomasEJ. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the ambulatory setting: a study of closed malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:488-496.
2.
GawandeAAZinnerMJStuddertDMBrennanTA.Analysis of errors reported by surgeons at three teaching hospitals. Surgery. 2003;133:614-621.
3.
GreenbergCCRegenbogenSEStuddertDM. Patterns of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:533-540.
4.
KachaliaAGandhiTKPuopoloAL. Missed and delayed diagnoses in the emergency department: a study of closed malpractice claims from 4 liability insurers. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49:196-205.
5.
AbrahamJKannampallilTPatelVL.A systematic review of the literature on the evaluation of handoff tools: implications for research and practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:154-162.
6.
FosterSManserT.The effects of patient handoff characteristics on subsequent care: a systematic review and areas for future research. Acad Med. 2012;87:1105-1124.
7.
LiPAliSTangCGhaliWAStelfoxHT.Review of computerized physician handoff tools for improving the quality of patient care. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:456-463.
8.
RiesenbergLLeitzschJCunninghamJ.Nursing handoffs: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Nurs. 2010;110:24-34.
9.
RiesenbergLALeitzschJMassucciJL. Residents’ and attending physicians’ handoffs: a systematic review of the literature. Acad Med. 2009;12:1775-1787.
10.
EchtDSLiebsonPRMitchellLB. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:781-788.
11.
LinDYFischlMASchoenfeldDA.Evaluating the role of CD4-lymphocyte counts as surrogate endpoints in human immunodeficiency virus clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12:835-842.
12.
HamptonJRvan VeldhuisenDJKleberFX. Randomised study of effect of ibopamine on survival in patients with advanced severe heart failure. Second Prospective Randomised Study of Ibopamine on Mortality and Efficacy (PRIME II) Investigators. Lancet. 1997;349:971-977.
13.
Committee of Principal Investigators. A co-operative trial in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease using clofibrate. Report from the Committee of Principal Investigators. Br Heart J. 1978;40:1069-1118.
14.
PrenticeRL.Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1989;8:431-440.
AthwalPFieldsWWagnellE.Standardization of change-of-shift report. J Nurs Care Qual. 2009;24:143-147.
17.
ChaboyerWJohnsonJHardyLGehrkeTPanuwatwanichK.Transforming care strategies and nursing-sensitive patient outcomes. J Adv Nurs. 2010;66:1111-1119.
18.
ChristiePRobinsonH.Using a communication framework at handover to boost patient outcomes. Nurs Times. 2009;105:13-15.
19.
DearmonVRousselLBucknerEB. Transforming care at the bedside (TCAB): enhancing direct care and value-added care. J Nurs Manag. 2013;21:668-678.
20.
FreitagMCarrollSV.Handoff communication: using failure modes and effects analysis to improve the transition in care process. Qual Manag Health Care. 2011;20:103-109.
21.
GibbonsJPNugentETierneySKavanaghD. Implementation of a surgical handover tool in a busy tertiary referral centre: a complete audit cycle [published online March14, 2015]. Ir J Med Sci. doi:10.1007/s11845-015-1278-5.
22.
GrahamKLMarcantonioERHuangGCYangJDavisRBSmithCC.Effect of a systems intervention on the quality and safety of patient handoffs in an internal medicine residency program. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28:986-993.
23.
Kajdacsy-Balla AmaralACBarrosBSBarrosCCInnesCPintoRRubenfeldGD.Nighttime cross-coverage is associated with decreased intensive care unit mortality. A single-center study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:1395-1401.
24.
LeeJCHorstMRogersA. Checklist-styled daily sign-out rounds improve hospital throughput in a major trauma center. Am Surg. 2014;80:434-440.
25.
LienIWongSWMaloufPTruskettPG.Effect of handover on the outcomes of small bowel obstruction in an acute care surgery model. ANZ J Surg. 2014;84:442-447.
26.
McQuillanACartheyJCatchpoleKMcCullochPRidoutDAGoldmanAP.Creating a safe, reliable hospital at night handover: a case study in implementation science. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:465-473.
27.
McQuillanACartheyJCatchpoleKMcCullochPRidoutDAGoldmanAP.Republished: Creating a safe, reliable hospital at night handover: a case study in implementation science. Postgrad Med J. 2014;90:493-501.
28.
RaoBSLoweGOHughesAJ.Reduced emergency calls and improved weekend discharge after introduction of a new electronic handover system. Med J Aust. 2012;197:569-573.
29.
RyanSO’RiordanJMTierneySConlonKCRidgwayPF.Impact of a new electronic handover system in surgery. Int J Surg. 2011;9:217-220.
30.
Sand-JecklinKShermanJ.Incorporating bedside report into nursing handoff: evaluation of change in practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2013;28:186-194.
31.
Sand-JecklinKShermanJ.A quantitative assessment of patient and nurse outcomes of bedside nursing report implementation. J Clin Nurs. 2014;23:2854-2863.
32.
SpankeMTThomasT.Nursing assistant walking report at change of shift. J Nurs Care Qual. 2010;25:261-265.
33.
StarmerAJSectishTCSimonDW. Rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children following implementation of a resident handoff bundle. JAMA. 2013;310:2262-2270.
34.
StarmerAJSpectorNDSrivastavaR. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1803-1812.
35.
TelemDABuchKEEllisSCoakleyBDivinoCM.Integration of a formalized handoff system into the surgical curriculum: resident perspectives and early results. Arch Surg. 2011;146:89-93.
36.
Van EatonEGMcDonoughKLoberWBJohnsonEAPellegriniCAHorvathKD.Safety of using a computerized rounding and sign-out system to reduce resident duty hours. Acad Med. 2010;85:1189-1195.
37.
WilsonR.Improving clinical handover in emergency departments. Emerg Nurse. 2011;19:22-26.
38.
YudkinJSLipskaKJMontoriVM.The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ. 2011;343:d7995.
39.
RiesenbergLALeitzschJLittleBW.Systematic review of handoff mnemonics literature. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24:196-204.
40.
LofgrenRPGottliebDWilliamsRARichEC.Post-call transfer of resident responsibility: its effect on patient care. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5:501-505.
41.
PetersenLAOravEJTeichJMO’NeilACBrennanTA.Using a computerized sign-out program to improve continuity of inpatient care and prevent adverse events. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998;24:77-87.
HorwitzLI.Does improving handoffs reduce medical error rates?JAMA. 2013;310:2255-2256.
44.
RiesenbergLA.Shift-to-shift handoff research: where do we go from here?J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4:4-8.
45.
CohenMDHilligossPB.The published literature on handoffs in hospitals: deficiencies identified in an extensive review. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:493-497.
46.
ReedDACookDABeckmanTJLevineRBKernDEWrightSM.Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. 2007;298:1002-1009.
47.
MerryAF.Safety in anaesthesia: reporting incidents and learning from them. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:337-339.
48.
CullenDJBatesDWSmallSDCooperJBNemeskalARLeapeLL.The incident reporting system does not detect adverse drug events: a problem for quality improvement. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1995;21:541-248.
49.
LevinsonDR.Hospital Incident Reporting Systems Do Not Capture Most Patient Harm. Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services; 2012.
50.
ThomasEJStuddertDMBrennanTA. The reliability of medical record review for estimating adverse event rates. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:812-816.
51.
ThomasEJPetersonLA.Measuring errors and adverse events in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:61-67.
52.
LevinsonDR.Adverse Events in Hospitals: National Incidence among Medicare Beneficiaries. Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
53.
DavidoffFBataldenP.Toward stronger evidence on quality improvement. Draft publication guidelines: the beginning of a consensus project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14:319-325.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
